To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Volume 30, No. 3 1
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
North Carolina Criminal Justice Analysis Center Governor’s Crime Commission
Volume 30, No. 3
The Prevalence of Current and Former Military Personnel
in North Carolina Jails
North Carolina Department of Public Safety
SystemStats
September 2013 projections indicate there are
currently 769,000 United States military veterans
residing within the borders of North Carolina.
Approximately three-fourths of these individuals
are considered wartime veterans — in other words,
they actively served during a period of conflict.
Almost 162,000 veterans are under the age of 44,
with roughly 95 percent (154,000) of this group being
classified as wartime veterans (U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, 2013).
Throughout the nation, literature hints at a growing
prevalence of United States active and former
military coming into contact with the criminal justice
system. Many researchers claim military veterans
are at an increased risk for involvement with the
criminal justice system; though the presence of these
brave men and women is oftentimes unrecognized
by authorities who come into contact with them.
Furthermore, studies have examined the emotional
toll placed on soldiers during combat, with lingering
effects on both physical and mental health, and its
linkage to an increased risk of incarceration for this
group. (Sayer, Rettmann, Carlson, Bernardy, Sigford,
Hamblen, & Friedman, 2009; Elbogen, Johnson,
Newton, Straits-Troster, Vasterling, Wagner, &
Beckham, 2012).
Untreated mental health and substance abuse
issues among veterans
Literature illustrates the impact of war on the mental
health of United States military veterans. Although
always a problem, it was not prominently measured
until recently. Tanielian, Jaycox, Marshall, Schell,
and Burnam (2008) estimate that due to the Iraq
and Afghanistan wars, over 300,000 veterans, or
about 18 percent of those returning home, have been
affected by post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
or major depression. Of even greater concern, it has
been estimated that less than half of the veterans
experiencing PTSD report it or seek treatment
(White, Mulvey, Fox, & Choate, 2011). Furthermore,
it has been shown that PTSD can have a delayed
impact in over one-third of cases, foreshadowing an
even greater impact of the disorder (Tanielian et al.,
2008). Reports from the Veterans Affairs Office of
Public Health and Environmental Hazards indicate
that 48 percent of veterans seeking Veterans Affairs
(VA) treatment between fiscal years 2002 and 2009
received a possible diagnosis of a mental disorder
(McMichael, 2011).
A similar study by Saxon, Davis, Sloan, McKnight,
McFall, and Kivlahan (2001) claims that PTSD is
linked to incarceration, substance abuse, violent
behaviors and even homelessness. Others have shown
that the single greatest indication that a veteran will
be incarcerated is substance abuse (Jacobson, Ryan,
North Carolina is home to a number of major military
bases and Coast Guard stations.
2 SystemStats
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
Hooper, Smith, Amoroso, Boyko, Gackstetter, Wells,
& Bell, 2008; Drug Policy Alliance, 2009). Some
have suggested that veterans are at an increased risk
of substance abuse due to the physical and mental
wounds of war in which affected veterans attempt
self-treatment through the use of non-prescribed
medication, alcohol, and illicit drugs (Jacobson et
al., 2008; Drug Policy Alliance, 2009); however,
literature is limited. The Institute of Medicine
(2010) claims difficulty in measuring the number
of veterans suffering from substance abuse and its
associated impacts, as cases involving persons with
a dishonorable discharge are usually exempt from
studies.
A great concern remains the lack of treatment sought
and received by all veterans. Too often the lack
of proper treatment leads to an increase in illicit
behavior which in turn leads to arrest. The United
States Department of Veterans Affairs offers a great
deal of programs aimed at treating veterans for
PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), depression, and
substance abuse. While these programs are in place,
studies estimate that only half of suffering veterans
seek treatment (Rosenheck, Banks, Pandiani, & Hoff,
2000; Saxon et al., 2001; Tanielian et al., 2008).
Moreover, Worzel, Blatchford, Conner, Adler, and
Binswanger (2012) observed that veterans receiving
some form of VA benefits were associated with a
reduced risk of death in comparison to those veterans
who did not. It appears that access to care mitigates
these risks during early post-release. Unfortunately,
Worzel et al. (2012) fail to report any relationships
regarding the amount and types of VA benefits
received.
The (known) prevalence of incarcerated
veterans
Nationally, one of the main concerns involving the
prevalence of veterans in the criminal justice system
is the lack of jurisdictions that inquire about military
experience for those taken into custody. As a result,
the amount of veterans who reside in local jails and
prisons is largely unknown. McGuire, Panuzio, &
Taft (2013) suggest that in order to address this
concern, an intake form should be completed during
booking that would capture specifics about past
military experience. Complicating the situation,
oftentimes veterans and active duty personnel hide
their service from law enforcement in fear of potential
repercussions (Equal Justice Foundation, 2011).
A handful of studies have examined the risk factors
for veterans being incarcerated, the number of
incarcerated veterans, and the crimes committed by
veterans. It is estimated that veterans consist of just
over 10 percent of all arrests nationwide; among
arrested veterans, approximately 20 percent report
past exposure to combat (Greenberg et al., 2007, Drug
Policy Alliance, 2009). In terms of incarceration,
roughly 223,000 veterans were incarcerated in state
and federal prisons in 2007 (Noonan & Mumola,
2007; Center for Mental Health Services National
GAINS Center, 2008). Of veterans incarcerated in
federal prisons, 46 percent were sentenced due to
drug convictions, whereas 57 percent of veterans
in state penitentiaries were serving time for violent
crimes (Wortzel et al., 2009).
In Travis County, Texas, a survey of inmates in
the Fall of 2008 showed that veterans represented
about 4 percent of bookings during a 90-day period.
While the majority (95 percent) of inmates booked
into the jail were male, the age distribution was
fairly widespread. Of the 458 veteran arrestees,
roughly one-fifth (18 percent) indicated they served
in Iraq or Afghanistan and 13 percent had served in
Vietnam. In terms of discharge type, 86 percent of
veterans received an Honorable, General Honorable
or Medical discharge, while nine percent received
a less than honorable discharge. Substance-abuse
related charges (driving while impaired, possession,
The Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial located at the State
Capitol Building recognizes the 206,000 men and
women of North Carolina who served in Vietnam.
(N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, 2013).
Volume 30, No. 3 3
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
delivery, public intoxication
and vehicular manslaughter)
comprised over one-third (34
percent) of charges filed and
were particularly prevalent
among those age 20-29. About
one-third of veterans within
the sample were arrested two
or more times during the 90-
day survey period. Lastly,
one of the most revealing
facts provided was that in an
average month, just under one-half
(47 percent) of arrested
veterans could still qualify
for referral to the VA for evaluation and services,
coupled with 65 percent of arrested veterans reported
that they had never obtained VA services prior to
being arrested (Travis County Veterans Intervention
Project, 2009).
A separate survey of 100 inmates in the Alameda
County, California jail system revealed that veterans
experience a higher level of mental health issues
compared to the overall general population.
Specifically, 64 percent of veterans surveyed reported
having some form of mental illness, while 75 percent
claimed to have a substance abuse problem. Among
the 14 post-9/11 veteran inmates, only 2 had accessed
VA healthcare and education services. Seven reported
having mental health problems, mostly PTSD, while
nine had ongoing issues with drug and/or alcohol
abuse. An assessment of veteran inmates’ eligibility
for alternative sentencing under California law
revealed that of the 100 veterans interviewed, 35
would qualify (California Veterans Legal Task Force,
2012).
What information is being collected concerning
arrestees with military service in North
Carolina?
In June 2013, the Criminal Justice Analysis Center in
the Governor’s Crime Commission (GCC) surveyed
all jail administrators throughout the state to inquire
about what specific information regarding military
service was collected upon booking and intake of
arrestees. In addition, the survey inquired about
how information is collected, when it is collected,
if and how the information is verified, and whether
respondents would be willing to partner with the
GCC in the collection of future data. Ninety-three jail
administrators were identified by the North Carolina
Jail Administrators’ Association’s online detention
facility directory and sent a survey invitation via
the email address listed in the directory. Each of the
survey recipients were informed that their responses
would be reported in an aggregate manner and that
individual agencies would not be identified. The
response collection period lasted three weeks and
occurred between mid-June 2013 and early-July
2013. A follow-up phone call was made to non-responding
facilities in an effort to boost the survey’s
response rate and to ensure proper delivery.
Responses were received from just over one-half
(50.5 percent) of survey recipients. In total,
responding agencies comprised 55.7 percent of the
statewide average daily population (ADP) for county
jails. Of the survey’s 47 responses, 16 detention
facilities (34 percent) claimed to collect information
concerning veteran status of inmates. Of these
16 facilities, 13 (81.3 percent) claimed to collect
information regarding branch of service (Army,
Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard), while four
facilities (25 percent) inquire about type of service
(active duty, reserve, National Guard), three facilities
(18.8 percent) inquire about type of discharge
(honorable, medical, bad conduct, etc.), and only
two (12.5 percent) gather information on length of
service or year of discharge. During follow-up phone
conversations, it was discovered that three facilities
which originally claimed to collect information did
not actually collect specific information, and only
inquired about whether the arrestee is a veteran. None
Figure 1: Information gathered by N.C. jails that inquire about military
service of booked individuals (n=16).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Branches of
service
Component
of service
Length of
service
Type of
discharge
Year of
discharge
Service in
combat
operation
None of the
above
81.3%
25.0%
12.5%
18.8%
12.5%
0.0%
18.8%
Figure 1. Information gathered by N.C. jails that inquire about military service of booked
individuals (n=16)
4 SystemStats
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
of the respondents inquired about whether the arrestee
had ever served in combat operations, although
just over one-half (53.8 percent) of respondents
did inquire about service-related injuries. Of the 13
facilities that collect data regarding an arrestee’s prior
or current service, only four (30.8 percent) routinely
verify whether provided information is accurate.
When asked about the reasons for collecting data
on arrestees’ military service during follow-up
phone conversations with jail administrators, three
facilities implied that a Veterans Justice Outreach
(VJO) Specialist requested their facility to identify
booked veterans and active military. According to
those three respondents, the VJO Specialist has been
monitoring these data for about 12-18 months. As the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is committed
to preventing incarceration and reducing recidivism
among veterans, the Veterans Justice Outreach
(VJO) Program was developed. As part of the VJO
Program’s focus, specialists have been focused on
developing communication with jails to identify
veterans who are incarcerated and engaging veterans
in available services upon release.
Other reasons respondents provided ranged from local
judicial interest in implementing a veterans treatment
court, to their jail management system (JMS) being
able to capture information on military service such
as branch (i.e., Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force,
Coast Guard) or component of service (i.e., active
duty, Reserves, National Guard). All in all, after
follow-up conversations, only seven respondents
indicated the ability to provide aggregated counts
of veterans and those currently serving; however,
only four were able to provide information within a
relatively short turnaround. Not surprisingly, with
various JMS software being used by jails across
the state, the data were unique in what information
was readily accessible for sharing. A handful of
responding facilities had the ability to simply run
a report pertaining to a specific field (e.g., branch
of service) on those booked within their systems
during a specific time period, while others had to sort
through hand-written notes in a paper version related
to either individual inmate files or a main booking
log. Lastly, it became obvious during the study that
data regarding veterans status has been recorded by
facilities for varying amounts time. Therefore, the
time period of data provided to the CJAC ranges
from a few months to several years.
A county detention facility in the Piedmont area
indicated that 72 veterans had been booked between
May 10, 2013 and July 30, 2013. That particular
facility was unable to provide additional information
other than the arrestee had indicated being a veteran
when asked by the booking officer of the jail. While
a specific field for veteran status was not available
within the facility’s JMS, data was recorded by a
denotation of “veteran” in the notes section of the
JMS for each arrestee.
In the eastern part of the state, a detention facility
provided information on 293 (unduplicated) arrestees
booked between May 1, 2013 and July 31, 2013. Of
those, 11 (3.8 percent) were identified as veterans.
According to the jail administrator for that facility,
of identified veteran arrestees, a large portion were
discharged from the service for medical reasons.
Almost half of the veterans booked were arrested
either for assault on a female (n=3) or for violating
a protective order (n=2).
Another detention facility in the Piedmont region of
the state was able to provide specific data regarding
branch of service and date of discharge on arrestees
booked between January 1, 2013 and August 5, 2013.
During that time period, 166 booked individuals
(unduplicated) were identified as serving in the
military at one point in time. Of those, 74 (44.6
percent) had served in the Army, 31 (18.7 percent)
had served in the Marine Corps, 27 (16.3 percent) had
served in the Navy, 17 (10.2 percent) had served in
the Army National Guard, 15 (9 percent) had served
Volume 30, No. 3 5
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
in the Air Force, one (0.6 percent) had
served in the Coast Guard, and one (0.6
percent) had served in the Reserve.1
While the discharge date was either
unknown or had not yet occurred for
75 (45.2 percent) individuals within the
cohort, there was quite a bit of variation
in terms of the date of discharge from
service.
Finally, of all jails providing specific
data on this population, one Piedmont
detention facility was able to provide
five years’ worth of data. Over the span
of August 1, 2008 through August 12,
2013, 857 (unduplicated) individuals
were booked claiming past or current
military service. Of those, almost half (46.8 percent)
indicated service in the Army, while the remainder
indicated having served in the Navy (16.1 percent),
Marine Corps (14.8 percent), Air Force (9.2 percent),
Army National Guard (6.7 percent), Reserve in one
of the five US Armed Forces’ branches (4.6 percent),
and Coast Guard (0.9 percent). The specific branch
was not recorded for eight (0.9 percent) of the booked
veterans. The facility was also able to provide a
breakdown of military status for these individuals
booked within the five year period. Based on these
data, without accounting for offense charges, a large
majority (83.4 percent) appear to be eligible for VA
services.
Table 1: Military status of veterans booked
between August 2008-August 2013 for a
sample responding detention facility
Military Status
Number
Booked
Percent of
Total
Active Duty 51 6.0%
Inactive Duty 51 6.0%
Reserve 17 2.0%
Honorable Discharge 567 66.2%
Dishonorable 42 4.9%
Less than Honorable 83 9.7%
Retired 46 5.4%
TOTAL 857
Veterans treatment courts across the nation and
their promising (yet early) results
Veterans treatment courts are currently the most
widely used alternative sentencing method for
justice-involved veterans in the country. In An Act To
Establish Veterans Treatment Courts (2011), the State
of Maine’s legislature defind a veterans treatment
court as “a specialized sentencing docket in select
criminal cases in which the defendant is a veteran or
member of the United States Armed Forces to enable
veterans agencies and social services agencies to
provide treatment for that defendant. The court does
not provide treatment but contracts or collaborates
with experienced and expert treatment providers.”
These problem-solving courts were created based on
the drug court model and seek to address the treatment
necessities of criminal justice involved veterans.
Veterans treatment courts allow jurisdictions to
serve a large segment of the justice-involved veteran
population by treating them in specialized courts as
opposed to criminal courts (Russell, 2010). Using
these courts has proved to advance the treatment of
military veterans while aiming to reduce the risk of
recidivism. According to an inventory collected by
McGuire et al. (2013), as of early 2013, there are over
160 veterans treatment courts throughout the country.
Roughly half of states have at least one operational
court, yet none exist in North Carolina.2
The first and most prominent veterans treatment
court began in Buffalo, New York in 2008 where a
Figure 2: Year of discharge for veterans booked in CY 2013 in
a sample N.C. detention facility
1Information was not available as to which specific branch
(Army, Navy, USMC, Air Force, Coast Guard) of Reserve
the individual had served in.
2 As of August 16, 2013.
6 SystemStats
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
judicially supervised court docket was implemented
to strike a balance between the need to treat
a veteran suffering from a mental disorder or
substance abuse, coupled with the need to protect the
community (Russell, 2010). The court has adopted
a slightly modified version of the ten drug court
key components (U.S. Department of Justice, 1997)
and utilizes a court system comprised of veterans,
veteran healthcare workers, veteran mentors, and
a therapeutic environment to maximize the court’s
effectiveness.
A study by Holbrook and Anderson (2011) illustrates
the different sets of criteria used in the veterans
treatment courts throughout the country. The most
prominent criteria used to determine if a veteran is
eligible for the specialized court include whether a
prospective participant is eligible for VA benefits,
has a treatable behavioral condition, and finally, the
type of offense the veteran is being charged with.
According to the review by Holbrook and Anderson
(2011) as of January 28, 2013, 71 percent of veterans
courts do not require veterans to be eligible for VA
benefits. Thirty-six percent of veterans treatment
courts require veterans to have a treatable behavioral
condition, for example substance abuse or PTSD.
Lastly, 93 percent of courts limit participants based
on the type of offense the veteran is being charged
with. The majority of veterans’ courts hear both
misdemeanor (86 percent) and felony (79 percent)
cases, though most courts appeared to base eligibility
for felony-level offenses on offense severity
(Holbrook & Anderson, 2011).
Because the concept of veterans treatment courts
is fairly new, literature outlining the success of
these programs is rather scarce. In order to measure
success, a veterans treatment court in the Fourth
Judicial District of Minnesota set goals for veterans
who entered in the program. Success was measured
by court completion/graduation and recidivism.
During the first six months after entry into veterans
treatment court, 83 percent (n=97) of participants
had committed fewer offenses than during the six
months prior to entry. In fact, in the 24 months
after being accepted into the program, 72 percent
(n=21) of participants had committed fewer crimes
in comparison to the 24 months prior to admission
(Caron, 2013).
Other notable goals of the specialized court include
promoting participant sobriety, improving life
stability, and improving social support connections. In
these three respects, veterans improved dramatically
with court treatment. Upon entering the program,
85 percent of participants report substance abuse
problems. Following graduation, that reported
percentage decreased to less than 56 percent.
Although these results are limited and should be
analyzed with caution, it is evident that the advance
of program goals has great potential to effectively
treat justice-involved veterans (Caron, 2013).
An effort to combat the problem in North
Carolina
In 2009, the state of North Carolina received a five-year
grant, in the amount of $1.77 million, from the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMSHA). As a result, the state
implemented a jail diversion and trauma recovery
Literature shows that military personnel returning from
war face a heightened risk of mental health issues,
suicide, and substance abuse, which increases their like-lihood
for involvement with the criminal justice system
(Sayer et al., 2009; Elbogen et al., 2012; Saxon et al.,
2001; Drug Policy Alliance, 2009)
Volume 30, No. 3 7
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
pilot project in Mecklenburg County, entitled
Operation Recovery. The project seeks to support
local implementation and statewide expansion of
trauma-integrated jail diversion programs, with hopes
of reaching the growing number of individuals with
PTSD and trauma-related disorders involved in the
justice system, with a priority towards veterans (B.
Kurtz, personal communication, August 15, 2013).
Recognizing the numerous opportunities within the
criminal justice system for linkage to services for
those in need, the Sequential Intercept Model was
defined by Munetz and Griffin (2006) to provide a
conceptual framework for communities to organize
targeted strategies for justice-involved individuals
with mental illness. The Mecklenburg County jail
diversion program falls somewhere within the middle
of the Sequential Intercept Model as it seeks to
provide community-based treatment as an alternative
to incarceration.
The SAMHSA grant has helped establish a trauma-informed
system of services and treatment of trauma
that includes a service system that is welcoming to
veterans and understands military culture and needs,
and a range of jail diversion services to intercept
people afflicted by trauma (particularly veterans)
and get them treatment in the community when
appropriate and with little risk to public safety.
Additionally, the VJO Specialist out of Salisbury is
collocated in Mecklenburg County for two to three
days per week.
During the life of the project, 78 total diversions
have occurred, including 45 occurring between
October 1, 2012 and July 31, 2013 (B. Kurtz, personal
communication, August 15, 2013).
Conclusion
Literature shows that military personnel returning
from war face a heightened risk of mental health
issues, suicide, and substance abuse, which increases
their likelihood for involvement with the criminal
justice system (Sayer et al., 2009; Elbogen et al.,
2012; Saxon et al., 2001; Drug Policy Alliance, 2009).
However, law enforcement, detention facilities, and
even the courts seldom recognize a defendant’s
history of military service to our country. Although
results are not abundant by any means, literature has
provided a foundation for building systems that assist
and treat justice-involved veterans. As previously
outlined, efforts are taking place across the nation
to aid in the complex rehabilitative and treatment
needs of veterans while seeking to reduce recidivism
among this at-risk population. Monitoring data
from these efforts should be continued as the need
for such projects will be ever growing in the near
future. Furthermore, to aid in the identification of
this population in jails across the state, local sheriff’s
offices should encourage their jails to systematically
collect information regarding an inmate’s prior or
current military service.
Going forward, the GCC hopes to partner with either
county detention facilities or local magistrates who
are willing to collect data on this population in the
future. At the time of this document, it is has yet to
be determined which method will be used for data
collection to aid in planning purposes. It is anticipated
that future research will expand on the types of data
provided in this document and can hopefully provide
clarity on the actual prevalence of current and former
military personnel specific to North Carolina.
Research conducted by:
Justin Davis
Social/Clinical Research Specialist
Criminal Justice Analysis Center
Governor’s Crime Commission
Brad Jordan, Intern
Elon University
This project was supported by Grant No.
2012-BJ-CX-K002 awarded by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in
this document are those of the author and do
not necessarily represent the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
8 SystemStats
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
California Veterans Legal Task Force (2012).
Profile of 100 Incarcerated Veterans.
Retrieved from http://media.nbcbayarea.
com/documents/Duncan+Report.pdf
Caron, A. (2013). Fourth judicial district veterans
court – Two year review: July 2010 – June
2012. Retrieved from http://www.mncourts.
gov/Documents/4/Public/Research/Veterans_
Court_Two_Year_Review.pdf
Clark, S., McGuire, J. & Blue-Howells, J. (2010).
Practice commentary: Development
of veteran treatment courts: Local and
legislative initiatives. Drug Court Review
7(1).
Center for Mental Health Services National
GAINS Center (2008). Responding to the
needs of justice-involved combat veterans
with service-related trauma and mental
health conditions: A consensus report of the
CMHS National GAINS Center’s Forum on
Combat Veterans, Trauma, and the Justice
System. Delmar, NY: Author. Retrieved from
http://gainscenter.samhsa.gov/pdfs/veterans/
CVTJS_Report.pdf
Drug Policy Alliance (2009). Healing a broken
system: Veterans battling addiction and
incarceration. Retrieved from http://www.
drugpolicy.org/docUploads/DPA_IssueBrief_
Veterans.pdf
Elbogen, E., Johnson S., Newton V., Straits-
Troster K., Vasterling J., Wagner R., &
Beckham, C. (2012). Criminal justice
involvement, trauma, and negative affect
in Iraq and Afghanistan war era veterans.
American Psychological Association.
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/23025247
Equal Justice Foundation (2011). El Paso County
veteran arrest study: Initial analysis of 1,000
veteran arrests, August-November 2010.
Retrieved from http://ejfi.org/PDF/EPSO_
vet_arrest_report.pdf
Gambill, G. (2010, May 11). Justice-involved
veterans: A mounting social crisis. Los
Angeles Daily Journal. Retrieved from
http://www.ejfi.org/Courts/Courts-40.htm
Greenberg, G. & Rosenheck, R. (2007). Risk
of incarceration among male veterans
and non-veterans: Are veterans of the all
volunteer force at greater risk. Armed Forces
and Society, 33(3). Retrieved from http://
citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_
research_citation/0/9/4/0/8/pages94085/
p94085-1.php
Holbrook, J., & Anderson, S. (2011). Veterans
courts: Early outcomes and key indicators
for success. Widener University School of
Law: Widener Law School Legal Studies
Research Paper Series No. 11-25. Retrieved
from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=1912655
Institute for Operations Research and the
Management Sciences (2009). Iraq troops’
PTSD rate as high as 35%, says management
insights study. Retrieved from https://www.
informs.org/About-INFORMS/News-Room/
Press-Releases/Iraq-Troops-PTSD-Rate-as-
High-as-35-Says-Management-Insights-
Study
Jacobson, I., Ryan, M., Hooper, T., Smith, T.,
Amoroso, P., Boyko, E., Gackstetter, G.,
Wells, T & Bell, N. (2008). Alcohol use and
alcohol-related problems before and after
military combat deployment. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 300 (6), 663-
675.
Maine Statute Title 4, §433 (2011). Retrieved
from http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/
statutes/4/title4sec433.html
Marshall, A., Panuzio, J. & Taft, C. (2005).
Intimate partner violence among military
veterans and active duty servicemen. Clinical
Psychology Review. Retrieved from http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16006025
References
Volume 30, No. 3 9
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
McGuire, J., Panuzio, J. & Taft, T. (2013). An
inventory of VA involvement in veterans
courts, dockets and tracks. VA Veterans
Justice Programs. Retrieved from http://
www.justiceforvets.org/sites/default/files/
files/An%20Inventory%20of%20VA%20
involvement%20in%20Veterans%20Courts.
pdf
McMichael, W.H. (2011). The battle on the home
front: Special courts turn to vets to help other
vets. American Bar Association Journal,
97(1). Retrieved June 19, 2013 from http://
www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_
battle_on_the_home_front_special_courts_
turn_to_vets_to_help_other_vets/.
Munetz, M.R. & Griffin, P.A. (2006). Use of the
sequential intercept model as an approach
to decriminalization of people with serious
mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 57(4),
544-549
National Association of Drug Court Professionals
(n.d.).Veterans treatment courts giving our
heroes at home the help they’ve earned.
Retrieved from http://www.dwicourts.org/
sites/default/files/nadcp/VTC%20Brief.pdf
Noonan, M. & Mumola, C. (2007). Veterans in
state and federal prison, 2004. Bureau of
Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Retrieved from: http://www.bjs.gov/content/
pub/pdf/vsfp04.pdf
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
(2013). North Carolina Historic Sites: A
Tour of the State Capitol. Retrieved from
http://www.nchistoricsites.com/capitol/stat_
cap/tour.htm#Monument
Rosenheck R., Banks S., Pandiani J., & Hoff, R.
(2000). Bed closures and incarceration rates
among users of Veterans Affairs mental
health services. Psychiatric Services, 51(10),
1282-7).
Russell, R. (2010). Veterans treatment courts
developing throughout the nation. Retrieved
from http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Russell_
etsTreatmentCourtsDevelopNationwide_2009.
pdf
Saxon, A., Davis, T., Sloan K., McKnight, K.,
McFall, M., & Kivlahan, D. (2001). Trauma,
symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder,
and associated problems among incarcerated
veterans. Psychiatric Services, 52(7), 959-
964.
Sayer, N., Rettmann, N., Carlson, K., Bernardy,
N., Sigford, B., Hamblen, J., & Friedman,
M. (2009). Veterans with history of mild
traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic
stress disorder: Challenges from provider
perspective. Journal of Rehabilitation
Research & Development, 46 (6), 703-716.
Retrieved from http://www.rehab.research.
va.gov/jour/09/46/6/pdf/sayer.pdf
Tanielian, T., Jaycox, L., Marshall, G., Schell, T.
& Burnam, A. (2008). Invisible wounds:
Summary and recommendations for
addressing psychological and cognitive
injuries. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Travis County Veterans Intervention Project
(2009). Report of veterans arrested and
booked into the Travis County Jail. Retrieved
from http://www.co.travis.tx.us/constables/4/
pdfs/vip_jail_survey_report.pdf.
United States Department of Veterans Affairs,
National Center for Veterans Analysis and
Statistics (2013). The veteran population
projection model 2011 Table 9L: VetPop2011
county-level veteran population by state,
2010-2040. Retrieved from http://www.
va.gov/vetdata/veteran_population.asp.
White, M., Mulvey, P., Fox, A. & Choate, D.
(2011). A hero’s welcome? Exploring the
prevalence and problems of military veterans
in the arrestee population. Justice Quarterly,
29(2), 258-286. Retrieved from http://cvpcs.
asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/products/
Vet%20Paper%20final.pdf.
Worzel, H., Blatchford, P., Conner, L., Adler, L.,
& Binswanger, I. (2012). Risk of death for
veterans on release from prison. The Journal
of the American Academy of Psychiatry and
the Law, 40(3), 348-354. Retrieved from
http://www.jaapl.org/content/40/3/348.full.
pdf.
10 SystemStats
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
SYSTEM STATS
A Publication of the
Governor’s Crime Commission
Department of Public Safety
(919) 733-4564
http://www.ncgccd.org
Christopher E. Swecker L. David Huffman
Chair, Governor’s Crime Commission Executive Director, Governor’s Crime Commission
Julie A. Singer, Ph.D.
Director, Criminal Justice Analysis Center
James Klopovic, D.P.P. Richard A. Hayes, M.S.C. Justin Davis, B.S.
Criminal Justice Planner Senior Research Analyst Social/Clinical Research Specialist
Karen G. Jayson, M.S.C.J. Yu Li Hsu, M.S.
Social/Clinical Research Specialist Research Assistant
The Governor’s Crime Commission was established in 1977 by the North Carolina General Assembly under G.S. 143B-479. Its primary duty is “to be the chief
advisory body to the Governor and the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety for the development and implementation of criminal justice policy.” The Crime
Commission is always open to comments and suggestions from the public as well as criminal justice officials. Please contact us and let us know your thoughts and
feelings on the information contained in this publication or on any other criminal justice issue of concern to you.
Pat McCrory
Governor
Christopher E. Swecker, Chair
Governor’s Crime Commission
Secretary Frank L. Perry
Department of Public Safety
Senator Tom Apodaca
N.C. General Assembly
Dr. June Atkinson, Superintendent
Department of Public Instruction
Sheriff B.J. Barnes
Guilford County Sheriff’s Office
Michael D. Barnes
Charlotte City Council
James Blanton
Defense Attorney
Chief Christopher Blue
Chapel Hill Police Department
Judge Athena Brooks
District Court Judge
Senator Harry Brown
N.C. General Assembly
Sheriff Alan Cloninger
Gaston County Sheriff’s Office
Steven Cogburn
Clerk of Superior Court, Buncombe County
Attorney General Roy Cooper
Department of Justice
Devin Davis
Youth Member
Emily Ericksen
Youth Member
Mayor James K. Festerman
City of Reidsville
James D. Gaither, Jr.
District Attorney
James Gorham, Executive Officer
Department of Public Safety
Division of Juvenile Justice
David Hardesty
Director of Juvenile Facilities
Department of Public Safety
Sheriff Donnie Harrison
Wake County Sheriff’s Office
Representative D. Craig Horn
N.C. General Assembly
Fred “Chip” Hughes
Commissioner, Town of Trent Woods
Jean R. Irvin
Private Juvenile Justice Program
Sheriff James L. Knight
Edgecombe County Sheriff’s Office
Chief Steven C. Lewis
Beaufort Police Department
Ivan D. McLaughlin
Private Citizen
Gregory McLeod, Director
N.C. State Bureau of Investigation
Gail Mills
Durham Rescue Mission
Chief Rodney Monroe
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
Representative Timothy K. Moore
N.C. General Assembly
Chief Patricia D. Norris
Winston-Salem State University
Police & Public Safety
Judge Ali Paksoy
District Court Judge
Chief Justice Sarah E. Parker
North Carolina Supreme Court
Commissioner Anne Precythe
Department of Public Safety
Division of Adult Correction
Sharon Sadler
Clerk of Superior Court, Hyde County
Aurelia Sands-Belle, Executive Director
Durham Crisis Response Center
Judge Douglas B. Sasser
Superior Court Judge
Sergeant Crystal O’Neal-Sharpe
Graham Police Department
Judge John W. Smith, Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
George Soloman
Department of Public Safety
Division of Prisons, Adult Correction
Representative Sarah Stevens
N.C. General Assembly
J. Keith Stone
Private Citizen
Secretary Alana Wos, M.D.
Department of Health & Human Services
Commission Members as of September 30, 2013

Volume 30, No. 3 1
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
North Carolina Criminal Justice Analysis Center Governor’s Crime Commission
Volume 30, No. 3
The Prevalence of Current and Former Military Personnel
in North Carolina Jails
North Carolina Department of Public Safety
SystemStats
September 2013 projections indicate there are
currently 769,000 United States military veterans
residing within the borders of North Carolina.
Approximately three-fourths of these individuals
are considered wartime veterans — in other words,
they actively served during a period of conflict.
Almost 162,000 veterans are under the age of 44,
with roughly 95 percent (154,000) of this group being
classified as wartime veterans (U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, 2013).
Throughout the nation, literature hints at a growing
prevalence of United States active and former
military coming into contact with the criminal justice
system. Many researchers claim military veterans
are at an increased risk for involvement with the
criminal justice system; though the presence of these
brave men and women is oftentimes unrecognized
by authorities who come into contact with them.
Furthermore, studies have examined the emotional
toll placed on soldiers during combat, with lingering
effects on both physical and mental health, and its
linkage to an increased risk of incarceration for this
group. (Sayer, Rettmann, Carlson, Bernardy, Sigford,
Hamblen, & Friedman, 2009; Elbogen, Johnson,
Newton, Straits-Troster, Vasterling, Wagner, &
Beckham, 2012).
Untreated mental health and substance abuse
issues among veterans
Literature illustrates the impact of war on the mental
health of United States military veterans. Although
always a problem, it was not prominently measured
until recently. Tanielian, Jaycox, Marshall, Schell,
and Burnam (2008) estimate that due to the Iraq
and Afghanistan wars, over 300,000 veterans, or
about 18 percent of those returning home, have been
affected by post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
or major depression. Of even greater concern, it has
been estimated that less than half of the veterans
experiencing PTSD report it or seek treatment
(White, Mulvey, Fox, & Choate, 2011). Furthermore,
it has been shown that PTSD can have a delayed
impact in over one-third of cases, foreshadowing an
even greater impact of the disorder (Tanielian et al.,
2008). Reports from the Veterans Affairs Office of
Public Health and Environmental Hazards indicate
that 48 percent of veterans seeking Veterans Affairs
(VA) treatment between fiscal years 2002 and 2009
received a possible diagnosis of a mental disorder
(McMichael, 2011).
A similar study by Saxon, Davis, Sloan, McKnight,
McFall, and Kivlahan (2001) claims that PTSD is
linked to incarceration, substance abuse, violent
behaviors and even homelessness. Others have shown
that the single greatest indication that a veteran will
be incarcerated is substance abuse (Jacobson, Ryan,
North Carolina is home to a number of major military
bases and Coast Guard stations.
2 SystemStats
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
Hooper, Smith, Amoroso, Boyko, Gackstetter, Wells,
& Bell, 2008; Drug Policy Alliance, 2009). Some
have suggested that veterans are at an increased risk
of substance abuse due to the physical and mental
wounds of war in which affected veterans attempt
self-treatment through the use of non-prescribed
medication, alcohol, and illicit drugs (Jacobson et
al., 2008; Drug Policy Alliance, 2009); however,
literature is limited. The Institute of Medicine
(2010) claims difficulty in measuring the number
of veterans suffering from substance abuse and its
associated impacts, as cases involving persons with
a dishonorable discharge are usually exempt from
studies.
A great concern remains the lack of treatment sought
and received by all veterans. Too often the lack
of proper treatment leads to an increase in illicit
behavior which in turn leads to arrest. The United
States Department of Veterans Affairs offers a great
deal of programs aimed at treating veterans for
PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), depression, and
substance abuse. While these programs are in place,
studies estimate that only half of suffering veterans
seek treatment (Rosenheck, Banks, Pandiani, & Hoff,
2000; Saxon et al., 2001; Tanielian et al., 2008).
Moreover, Worzel, Blatchford, Conner, Adler, and
Binswanger (2012) observed that veterans receiving
some form of VA benefits were associated with a
reduced risk of death in comparison to those veterans
who did not. It appears that access to care mitigates
these risks during early post-release. Unfortunately,
Worzel et al. (2012) fail to report any relationships
regarding the amount and types of VA benefits
received.
The (known) prevalence of incarcerated
veterans
Nationally, one of the main concerns involving the
prevalence of veterans in the criminal justice system
is the lack of jurisdictions that inquire about military
experience for those taken into custody. As a result,
the amount of veterans who reside in local jails and
prisons is largely unknown. McGuire, Panuzio, &
Taft (2013) suggest that in order to address this
concern, an intake form should be completed during
booking that would capture specifics about past
military experience. Complicating the situation,
oftentimes veterans and active duty personnel hide
their service from law enforcement in fear of potential
repercussions (Equal Justice Foundation, 2011).
A handful of studies have examined the risk factors
for veterans being incarcerated, the number of
incarcerated veterans, and the crimes committed by
veterans. It is estimated that veterans consist of just
over 10 percent of all arrests nationwide; among
arrested veterans, approximately 20 percent report
past exposure to combat (Greenberg et al., 2007, Drug
Policy Alliance, 2009). In terms of incarceration,
roughly 223,000 veterans were incarcerated in state
and federal prisons in 2007 (Noonan & Mumola,
2007; Center for Mental Health Services National
GAINS Center, 2008). Of veterans incarcerated in
federal prisons, 46 percent were sentenced due to
drug convictions, whereas 57 percent of veterans
in state penitentiaries were serving time for violent
crimes (Wortzel et al., 2009).
In Travis County, Texas, a survey of inmates in
the Fall of 2008 showed that veterans represented
about 4 percent of bookings during a 90-day period.
While the majority (95 percent) of inmates booked
into the jail were male, the age distribution was
fairly widespread. Of the 458 veteran arrestees,
roughly one-fifth (18 percent) indicated they served
in Iraq or Afghanistan and 13 percent had served in
Vietnam. In terms of discharge type, 86 percent of
veterans received an Honorable, General Honorable
or Medical discharge, while nine percent received
a less than honorable discharge. Substance-abuse
related charges (driving while impaired, possession,
The Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial located at the State
Capitol Building recognizes the 206,000 men and
women of North Carolina who served in Vietnam.
(N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, 2013).
Volume 30, No. 3 3
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
delivery, public intoxication
and vehicular manslaughter)
comprised over one-third (34
percent) of charges filed and
were particularly prevalent
among those age 20-29. About
one-third of veterans within
the sample were arrested two
or more times during the 90-
day survey period. Lastly,
one of the most revealing
facts provided was that in an
average month, just under one-half
(47 percent) of arrested
veterans could still qualify
for referral to the VA for evaluation and services,
coupled with 65 percent of arrested veterans reported
that they had never obtained VA services prior to
being arrested (Travis County Veterans Intervention
Project, 2009).
A separate survey of 100 inmates in the Alameda
County, California jail system revealed that veterans
experience a higher level of mental health issues
compared to the overall general population.
Specifically, 64 percent of veterans surveyed reported
having some form of mental illness, while 75 percent
claimed to have a substance abuse problem. Among
the 14 post-9/11 veteran inmates, only 2 had accessed
VA healthcare and education services. Seven reported
having mental health problems, mostly PTSD, while
nine had ongoing issues with drug and/or alcohol
abuse. An assessment of veteran inmates’ eligibility
for alternative sentencing under California law
revealed that of the 100 veterans interviewed, 35
would qualify (California Veterans Legal Task Force,
2012).
What information is being collected concerning
arrestees with military service in North
Carolina?
In June 2013, the Criminal Justice Analysis Center in
the Governor’s Crime Commission (GCC) surveyed
all jail administrators throughout the state to inquire
about what specific information regarding military
service was collected upon booking and intake of
arrestees. In addition, the survey inquired about
how information is collected, when it is collected,
if and how the information is verified, and whether
respondents would be willing to partner with the
GCC in the collection of future data. Ninety-three jail
administrators were identified by the North Carolina
Jail Administrators’ Association’s online detention
facility directory and sent a survey invitation via
the email address listed in the directory. Each of the
survey recipients were informed that their responses
would be reported in an aggregate manner and that
individual agencies would not be identified. The
response collection period lasted three weeks and
occurred between mid-June 2013 and early-July
2013. A follow-up phone call was made to non-responding
facilities in an effort to boost the survey’s
response rate and to ensure proper delivery.
Responses were received from just over one-half
(50.5 percent) of survey recipients. In total,
responding agencies comprised 55.7 percent of the
statewide average daily population (ADP) for county
jails. Of the survey’s 47 responses, 16 detention
facilities (34 percent) claimed to collect information
concerning veteran status of inmates. Of these
16 facilities, 13 (81.3 percent) claimed to collect
information regarding branch of service (Army,
Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard), while four
facilities (25 percent) inquire about type of service
(active duty, reserve, National Guard), three facilities
(18.8 percent) inquire about type of discharge
(honorable, medical, bad conduct, etc.), and only
two (12.5 percent) gather information on length of
service or year of discharge. During follow-up phone
conversations, it was discovered that three facilities
which originally claimed to collect information did
not actually collect specific information, and only
inquired about whether the arrestee is a veteran. None
Figure 1: Information gathered by N.C. jails that inquire about military
service of booked individuals (n=16).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Branches of
service
Component
of service
Length of
service
Type of
discharge
Year of
discharge
Service in
combat
operation
None of the
above
81.3%
25.0%
12.5%
18.8%
12.5%
0.0%
18.8%
Figure 1. Information gathered by N.C. jails that inquire about military service of booked
individuals (n=16)
4 SystemStats
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
of the respondents inquired about whether the arrestee
had ever served in combat operations, although
just over one-half (53.8 percent) of respondents
did inquire about service-related injuries. Of the 13
facilities that collect data regarding an arrestee’s prior
or current service, only four (30.8 percent) routinely
verify whether provided information is accurate.
When asked about the reasons for collecting data
on arrestees’ military service during follow-up
phone conversations with jail administrators, three
facilities implied that a Veterans Justice Outreach
(VJO) Specialist requested their facility to identify
booked veterans and active military. According to
those three respondents, the VJO Specialist has been
monitoring these data for about 12-18 months. As the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is committed
to preventing incarceration and reducing recidivism
among veterans, the Veterans Justice Outreach
(VJO) Program was developed. As part of the VJO
Program’s focus, specialists have been focused on
developing communication with jails to identify
veterans who are incarcerated and engaging veterans
in available services upon release.
Other reasons respondents provided ranged from local
judicial interest in implementing a veterans treatment
court, to their jail management system (JMS) being
able to capture information on military service such
as branch (i.e., Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force,
Coast Guard) or component of service (i.e., active
duty, Reserves, National Guard). All in all, after
follow-up conversations, only seven respondents
indicated the ability to provide aggregated counts
of veterans and those currently serving; however,
only four were able to provide information within a
relatively short turnaround. Not surprisingly, with
various JMS software being used by jails across
the state, the data were unique in what information
was readily accessible for sharing. A handful of
responding facilities had the ability to simply run
a report pertaining to a specific field (e.g., branch
of service) on those booked within their systems
during a specific time period, while others had to sort
through hand-written notes in a paper version related
to either individual inmate files or a main booking
log. Lastly, it became obvious during the study that
data regarding veterans status has been recorded by
facilities for varying amounts time. Therefore, the
time period of data provided to the CJAC ranges
from a few months to several years.
A county detention facility in the Piedmont area
indicated that 72 veterans had been booked between
May 10, 2013 and July 30, 2013. That particular
facility was unable to provide additional information
other than the arrestee had indicated being a veteran
when asked by the booking officer of the jail. While
a specific field for veteran status was not available
within the facility’s JMS, data was recorded by a
denotation of “veteran” in the notes section of the
JMS for each arrestee.
In the eastern part of the state, a detention facility
provided information on 293 (unduplicated) arrestees
booked between May 1, 2013 and July 31, 2013. Of
those, 11 (3.8 percent) were identified as veterans.
According to the jail administrator for that facility,
of identified veteran arrestees, a large portion were
discharged from the service for medical reasons.
Almost half of the veterans booked were arrested
either for assault on a female (n=3) or for violating
a protective order (n=2).
Another detention facility in the Piedmont region of
the state was able to provide specific data regarding
branch of service and date of discharge on arrestees
booked between January 1, 2013 and August 5, 2013.
During that time period, 166 booked individuals
(unduplicated) were identified as serving in the
military at one point in time. Of those, 74 (44.6
percent) had served in the Army, 31 (18.7 percent)
had served in the Marine Corps, 27 (16.3 percent) had
served in the Navy, 17 (10.2 percent) had served in
the Army National Guard, 15 (9 percent) had served
Volume 30, No. 3 5
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
in the Air Force, one (0.6 percent) had
served in the Coast Guard, and one (0.6
percent) had served in the Reserve.1
While the discharge date was either
unknown or had not yet occurred for
75 (45.2 percent) individuals within the
cohort, there was quite a bit of variation
in terms of the date of discharge from
service.
Finally, of all jails providing specific
data on this population, one Piedmont
detention facility was able to provide
five years’ worth of data. Over the span
of August 1, 2008 through August 12,
2013, 857 (unduplicated) individuals
were booked claiming past or current
military service. Of those, almost half (46.8 percent)
indicated service in the Army, while the remainder
indicated having served in the Navy (16.1 percent),
Marine Corps (14.8 percent), Air Force (9.2 percent),
Army National Guard (6.7 percent), Reserve in one
of the five US Armed Forces’ branches (4.6 percent),
and Coast Guard (0.9 percent). The specific branch
was not recorded for eight (0.9 percent) of the booked
veterans. The facility was also able to provide a
breakdown of military status for these individuals
booked within the five year period. Based on these
data, without accounting for offense charges, a large
majority (83.4 percent) appear to be eligible for VA
services.
Table 1: Military status of veterans booked
between August 2008-August 2013 for a
sample responding detention facility
Military Status
Number
Booked
Percent of
Total
Active Duty 51 6.0%
Inactive Duty 51 6.0%
Reserve 17 2.0%
Honorable Discharge 567 66.2%
Dishonorable 42 4.9%
Less than Honorable 83 9.7%
Retired 46 5.4%
TOTAL 857
Veterans treatment courts across the nation and
their promising (yet early) results
Veterans treatment courts are currently the most
widely used alternative sentencing method for
justice-involved veterans in the country. In An Act To
Establish Veterans Treatment Courts (2011), the State
of Maine’s legislature defind a veterans treatment
court as “a specialized sentencing docket in select
criminal cases in which the defendant is a veteran or
member of the United States Armed Forces to enable
veterans agencies and social services agencies to
provide treatment for that defendant. The court does
not provide treatment but contracts or collaborates
with experienced and expert treatment providers.”
These problem-solving courts were created based on
the drug court model and seek to address the treatment
necessities of criminal justice involved veterans.
Veterans treatment courts allow jurisdictions to
serve a large segment of the justice-involved veteran
population by treating them in specialized courts as
opposed to criminal courts (Russell, 2010). Using
these courts has proved to advance the treatment of
military veterans while aiming to reduce the risk of
recidivism. According to an inventory collected by
McGuire et al. (2013), as of early 2013, there are over
160 veterans treatment courts throughout the country.
Roughly half of states have at least one operational
court, yet none exist in North Carolina.2
The first and most prominent veterans treatment
court began in Buffalo, New York in 2008 where a
Figure 2: Year of discharge for veterans booked in CY 2013 in
a sample N.C. detention facility
1Information was not available as to which specific branch
(Army, Navy, USMC, Air Force, Coast Guard) of Reserve
the individual had served in.
2 As of August 16, 2013.
6 SystemStats
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
judicially supervised court docket was implemented
to strike a balance between the need to treat
a veteran suffering from a mental disorder or
substance abuse, coupled with the need to protect the
community (Russell, 2010). The court has adopted
a slightly modified version of the ten drug court
key components (U.S. Department of Justice, 1997)
and utilizes a court system comprised of veterans,
veteran healthcare workers, veteran mentors, and
a therapeutic environment to maximize the court’s
effectiveness.
A study by Holbrook and Anderson (2011) illustrates
the different sets of criteria used in the veterans
treatment courts throughout the country. The most
prominent criteria used to determine if a veteran is
eligible for the specialized court include whether a
prospective participant is eligible for VA benefits,
has a treatable behavioral condition, and finally, the
type of offense the veteran is being charged with.
According to the review by Holbrook and Anderson
(2011) as of January 28, 2013, 71 percent of veterans
courts do not require veterans to be eligible for VA
benefits. Thirty-six percent of veterans treatment
courts require veterans to have a treatable behavioral
condition, for example substance abuse or PTSD.
Lastly, 93 percent of courts limit participants based
on the type of offense the veteran is being charged
with. The majority of veterans’ courts hear both
misdemeanor (86 percent) and felony (79 percent)
cases, though most courts appeared to base eligibility
for felony-level offenses on offense severity
(Holbrook & Anderson, 2011).
Because the concept of veterans treatment courts
is fairly new, literature outlining the success of
these programs is rather scarce. In order to measure
success, a veterans treatment court in the Fourth
Judicial District of Minnesota set goals for veterans
who entered in the program. Success was measured
by court completion/graduation and recidivism.
During the first six months after entry into veterans
treatment court, 83 percent (n=97) of participants
had committed fewer offenses than during the six
months prior to entry. In fact, in the 24 months
after being accepted into the program, 72 percent
(n=21) of participants had committed fewer crimes
in comparison to the 24 months prior to admission
(Caron, 2013).
Other notable goals of the specialized court include
promoting participant sobriety, improving life
stability, and improving social support connections. In
these three respects, veterans improved dramatically
with court treatment. Upon entering the program,
85 percent of participants report substance abuse
problems. Following graduation, that reported
percentage decreased to less than 56 percent.
Although these results are limited and should be
analyzed with caution, it is evident that the advance
of program goals has great potential to effectively
treat justice-involved veterans (Caron, 2013).
An effort to combat the problem in North
Carolina
In 2009, the state of North Carolina received a five-year
grant, in the amount of $1.77 million, from the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMSHA). As a result, the state
implemented a jail diversion and trauma recovery
Literature shows that military personnel returning from
war face a heightened risk of mental health issues,
suicide, and substance abuse, which increases their like-lihood
for involvement with the criminal justice system
(Sayer et al., 2009; Elbogen et al., 2012; Saxon et al.,
2001; Drug Policy Alliance, 2009)
Volume 30, No. 3 7
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
pilot project in Mecklenburg County, entitled
Operation Recovery. The project seeks to support
local implementation and statewide expansion of
trauma-integrated jail diversion programs, with hopes
of reaching the growing number of individuals with
PTSD and trauma-related disorders involved in the
justice system, with a priority towards veterans (B.
Kurtz, personal communication, August 15, 2013).
Recognizing the numerous opportunities within the
criminal justice system for linkage to services for
those in need, the Sequential Intercept Model was
defined by Munetz and Griffin (2006) to provide a
conceptual framework for communities to organize
targeted strategies for justice-involved individuals
with mental illness. The Mecklenburg County jail
diversion program falls somewhere within the middle
of the Sequential Intercept Model as it seeks to
provide community-based treatment as an alternative
to incarceration.
The SAMHSA grant has helped establish a trauma-informed
system of services and treatment of trauma
that includes a service system that is welcoming to
veterans and understands military culture and needs,
and a range of jail diversion services to intercept
people afflicted by trauma (particularly veterans)
and get them treatment in the community when
appropriate and with little risk to public safety.
Additionally, the VJO Specialist out of Salisbury is
collocated in Mecklenburg County for two to three
days per week.
During the life of the project, 78 total diversions
have occurred, including 45 occurring between
October 1, 2012 and July 31, 2013 (B. Kurtz, personal
communication, August 15, 2013).
Conclusion
Literature shows that military personnel returning
from war face a heightened risk of mental health
issues, suicide, and substance abuse, which increases
their likelihood for involvement with the criminal
justice system (Sayer et al., 2009; Elbogen et al.,
2012; Saxon et al., 2001; Drug Policy Alliance, 2009).
However, law enforcement, detention facilities, and
even the courts seldom recognize a defendant’s
history of military service to our country. Although
results are not abundant by any means, literature has
provided a foundation for building systems that assist
and treat justice-involved veterans. As previously
outlined, efforts are taking place across the nation
to aid in the complex rehabilitative and treatment
needs of veterans while seeking to reduce recidivism
among this at-risk population. Monitoring data
from these efforts should be continued as the need
for such projects will be ever growing in the near
future. Furthermore, to aid in the identification of
this population in jails across the state, local sheriff’s
offices should encourage their jails to systematically
collect information regarding an inmate’s prior or
current military service.
Going forward, the GCC hopes to partner with either
county detention facilities or local magistrates who
are willing to collect data on this population in the
future. At the time of this document, it is has yet to
be determined which method will be used for data
collection to aid in planning purposes. It is anticipated
that future research will expand on the types of data
provided in this document and can hopefully provide
clarity on the actual prevalence of current and former
military personnel specific to North Carolina.
Research conducted by:
Justin Davis
Social/Clinical Research Specialist
Criminal Justice Analysis Center
Governor’s Crime Commission
Brad Jordan, Intern
Elon University
This project was supported by Grant No.
2012-BJ-CX-K002 awarded by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in
this document are those of the author and do
not necessarily represent the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
8 SystemStats
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
California Veterans Legal Task Force (2012).
Profile of 100 Incarcerated Veterans.
Retrieved from http://media.nbcbayarea.
com/documents/Duncan+Report.pdf
Caron, A. (2013). Fourth judicial district veterans
court – Two year review: July 2010 – June
2012. Retrieved from http://www.mncourts.
gov/Documents/4/Public/Research/Veterans_
Court_Two_Year_Review.pdf
Clark, S., McGuire, J. & Blue-Howells, J. (2010).
Practice commentary: Development
of veteran treatment courts: Local and
legislative initiatives. Drug Court Review
7(1).
Center for Mental Health Services National
GAINS Center (2008). Responding to the
needs of justice-involved combat veterans
with service-related trauma and mental
health conditions: A consensus report of the
CMHS National GAINS Center’s Forum on
Combat Veterans, Trauma, and the Justice
System. Delmar, NY: Author. Retrieved from
http://gainscenter.samhsa.gov/pdfs/veterans/
CVTJS_Report.pdf
Drug Policy Alliance (2009). Healing a broken
system: Veterans battling addiction and
incarceration. Retrieved from http://www.
drugpolicy.org/docUploads/DPA_IssueBrief_
Veterans.pdf
Elbogen, E., Johnson S., Newton V., Straits-
Troster K., Vasterling J., Wagner R., &
Beckham, C. (2012). Criminal justice
involvement, trauma, and negative affect
in Iraq and Afghanistan war era veterans.
American Psychological Association.
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/23025247
Equal Justice Foundation (2011). El Paso County
veteran arrest study: Initial analysis of 1,000
veteran arrests, August-November 2010.
Retrieved from http://ejfi.org/PDF/EPSO_
vet_arrest_report.pdf
Gambill, G. (2010, May 11). Justice-involved
veterans: A mounting social crisis. Los
Angeles Daily Journal. Retrieved from
http://www.ejfi.org/Courts/Courts-40.htm
Greenberg, G. & Rosenheck, R. (2007). Risk
of incarceration among male veterans
and non-veterans: Are veterans of the all
volunteer force at greater risk. Armed Forces
and Society, 33(3). Retrieved from http://
citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_
research_citation/0/9/4/0/8/pages94085/
p94085-1.php
Holbrook, J., & Anderson, S. (2011). Veterans
courts: Early outcomes and key indicators
for success. Widener University School of
Law: Widener Law School Legal Studies
Research Paper Series No. 11-25. Retrieved
from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=1912655
Institute for Operations Research and the
Management Sciences (2009). Iraq troops’
PTSD rate as high as 35%, says management
insights study. Retrieved from https://www.
informs.org/About-INFORMS/News-Room/
Press-Releases/Iraq-Troops-PTSD-Rate-as-
High-as-35-Says-Management-Insights-
Study
Jacobson, I., Ryan, M., Hooper, T., Smith, T.,
Amoroso, P., Boyko, E., Gackstetter, G.,
Wells, T & Bell, N. (2008). Alcohol use and
alcohol-related problems before and after
military combat deployment. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 300 (6), 663-
675.
Maine Statute Title 4, §433 (2011). Retrieved
from http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/
statutes/4/title4sec433.html
Marshall, A., Panuzio, J. & Taft, C. (2005).
Intimate partner violence among military
veterans and active duty servicemen. Clinical
Psychology Review. Retrieved from http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16006025
References
Volume 30, No. 3 9
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
McGuire, J., Panuzio, J. & Taft, T. (2013). An
inventory of VA involvement in veterans
courts, dockets and tracks. VA Veterans
Justice Programs. Retrieved from http://
www.justiceforvets.org/sites/default/files/
files/An%20Inventory%20of%20VA%20
involvement%20in%20Veterans%20Courts.
pdf
McMichael, W.H. (2011). The battle on the home
front: Special courts turn to vets to help other
vets. American Bar Association Journal,
97(1). Retrieved June 19, 2013 from http://
www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_
battle_on_the_home_front_special_courts_
turn_to_vets_to_help_other_vets/.
Munetz, M.R. & Griffin, P.A. (2006). Use of the
sequential intercept model as an approach
to decriminalization of people with serious
mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 57(4),
544-549
National Association of Drug Court Professionals
(n.d.).Veterans treatment courts giving our
heroes at home the help they’ve earned.
Retrieved from http://www.dwicourts.org/
sites/default/files/nadcp/VTC%20Brief.pdf
Noonan, M. & Mumola, C. (2007). Veterans in
state and federal prison, 2004. Bureau of
Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Retrieved from: http://www.bjs.gov/content/
pub/pdf/vsfp04.pdf
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
(2013). North Carolina Historic Sites: A
Tour of the State Capitol. Retrieved from
http://www.nchistoricsites.com/capitol/stat_
cap/tour.htm#Monument
Rosenheck R., Banks S., Pandiani J., & Hoff, R.
(2000). Bed closures and incarceration rates
among users of Veterans Affairs mental
health services. Psychiatric Services, 51(10),
1282-7).
Russell, R. (2010). Veterans treatment courts
developing throughout the nation. Retrieved
from http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Russell_
etsTreatmentCourtsDevelopNationwide_2009.
pdf
Saxon, A., Davis, T., Sloan K., McKnight, K.,
McFall, M., & Kivlahan, D. (2001). Trauma,
symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder,
and associated problems among incarcerated
veterans. Psychiatric Services, 52(7), 959-
964.
Sayer, N., Rettmann, N., Carlson, K., Bernardy,
N., Sigford, B., Hamblen, J., & Friedman,
M. (2009). Veterans with history of mild
traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic
stress disorder: Challenges from provider
perspective. Journal of Rehabilitation
Research & Development, 46 (6), 703-716.
Retrieved from http://www.rehab.research.
va.gov/jour/09/46/6/pdf/sayer.pdf
Tanielian, T., Jaycox, L., Marshall, G., Schell, T.
& Burnam, A. (2008). Invisible wounds:
Summary and recommendations for
addressing psychological and cognitive
injuries. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Travis County Veterans Intervention Project
(2009). Report of veterans arrested and
booked into the Travis County Jail. Retrieved
from http://www.co.travis.tx.us/constables/4/
pdfs/vip_jail_survey_report.pdf.
United States Department of Veterans Affairs,
National Center for Veterans Analysis and
Statistics (2013). The veteran population
projection model 2011 Table 9L: VetPop2011
county-level veteran population by state,
2010-2040. Retrieved from http://www.
va.gov/vetdata/veteran_population.asp.
White, M., Mulvey, P., Fox, A. & Choate, D.
(2011). A hero’s welcome? Exploring the
prevalence and problems of military veterans
in the arrestee population. Justice Quarterly,
29(2), 258-286. Retrieved from http://cvpcs.
asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/products/
Vet%20Paper%20final.pdf.
Worzel, H., Blatchford, P., Conner, L., Adler, L.,
& Binswanger, I. (2012). Risk of death for
veterans on release from prison. The Journal
of the American Academy of Psychiatry and
the Law, 40(3), 348-354. Retrieved from
http://www.jaapl.org/content/40/3/348.full.
pdf.
10 SystemStats
The Prevalance of Current and Former Military Personnel in North Carolina Jails
SYSTEM STATS
A Publication of the
Governor’s Crime Commission
Department of Public Safety
(919) 733-4564
http://www.ncgccd.org
Christopher E. Swecker L. David Huffman
Chair, Governor’s Crime Commission Executive Director, Governor’s Crime Commission
Julie A. Singer, Ph.D.
Director, Criminal Justice Analysis Center
James Klopovic, D.P.P. Richard A. Hayes, M.S.C. Justin Davis, B.S.
Criminal Justice Planner Senior Research Analyst Social/Clinical Research Specialist
Karen G. Jayson, M.S.C.J. Yu Li Hsu, M.S.
Social/Clinical Research Specialist Research Assistant
The Governor’s Crime Commission was established in 1977 by the North Carolina General Assembly under G.S. 143B-479. Its primary duty is “to be the chief
advisory body to the Governor and the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety for the development and implementation of criminal justice policy.” The Crime
Commission is always open to comments and suggestions from the public as well as criminal justice officials. Please contact us and let us know your thoughts and
feelings on the information contained in this publication or on any other criminal justice issue of concern to you.
Pat McCrory
Governor
Christopher E. Swecker, Chair
Governor’s Crime Commission
Secretary Frank L. Perry
Department of Public Safety
Senator Tom Apodaca
N.C. General Assembly
Dr. June Atkinson, Superintendent
Department of Public Instruction
Sheriff B.J. Barnes
Guilford County Sheriff’s Office
Michael D. Barnes
Charlotte City Council
James Blanton
Defense Attorney
Chief Christopher Blue
Chapel Hill Police Department
Judge Athena Brooks
District Court Judge
Senator Harry Brown
N.C. General Assembly
Sheriff Alan Cloninger
Gaston County Sheriff’s Office
Steven Cogburn
Clerk of Superior Court, Buncombe County
Attorney General Roy Cooper
Department of Justice
Devin Davis
Youth Member
Emily Ericksen
Youth Member
Mayor James K. Festerman
City of Reidsville
James D. Gaither, Jr.
District Attorney
James Gorham, Executive Officer
Department of Public Safety
Division of Juvenile Justice
David Hardesty
Director of Juvenile Facilities
Department of Public Safety
Sheriff Donnie Harrison
Wake County Sheriff’s Office
Representative D. Craig Horn
N.C. General Assembly
Fred “Chip” Hughes
Commissioner, Town of Trent Woods
Jean R. Irvin
Private Juvenile Justice Program
Sheriff James L. Knight
Edgecombe County Sheriff’s Office
Chief Steven C. Lewis
Beaufort Police Department
Ivan D. McLaughlin
Private Citizen
Gregory McLeod, Director
N.C. State Bureau of Investigation
Gail Mills
Durham Rescue Mission
Chief Rodney Monroe
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
Representative Timothy K. Moore
N.C. General Assembly
Chief Patricia D. Norris
Winston-Salem State University
Police & Public Safety
Judge Ali Paksoy
District Court Judge
Chief Justice Sarah E. Parker
North Carolina Supreme Court
Commissioner Anne Precythe
Department of Public Safety
Division of Adult Correction
Sharon Sadler
Clerk of Superior Court, Hyde County
Aurelia Sands-Belle, Executive Director
Durham Crisis Response Center
Judge Douglas B. Sasser
Superior Court Judge
Sergeant Crystal O’Neal-Sharpe
Graham Police Department
Judge John W. Smith, Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
George Soloman
Department of Public Safety
Division of Prisons, Adult Correction
Representative Sarah Stevens
N.C. General Assembly
J. Keith Stone
Private Citizen
Secretary Alana Wos, M.D.
Department of Health & Human Services
Commission Members as of September 30, 2013